Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Intel 45nm New Stepping Q9550 C1

  1. #1
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,310

    Intel 45nm New Stepping Q9550 C1

    C1 looks good so far, but Q9550 price is really expensive.

    I just test FSB 450*8.5 1.31V stable at 2XORTHOS Large. The FSB limit is about FSB 480 1M only.






    QX9650 C1 will be coming soon.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    398
    Thx for the early results, Andre

    So it looks like 500FSB might still be a dream even with the new stepping (at least with p35)

    Do you happen to have any x48 mobo's in your arsenal? (Not that I'm expecting much more...)

  3. #3
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    122
    Hmm, non "(ES)" chip, these can't be far away! Nice result.
    QX9650 L740A 4GHz @ 1.25V aircooled
    8GB Team Dark DDR2-1066 @ 5-5-4-15 @ 2.00V
    Asus P5E 1.41V vNB
    GTX280 1GB 600/1450/1200
    WD Raptor 150GB + 2*500GB WD
    Pioneer 212D
    Corsair HX620
    Antec P182
    Dell 2407

  4. #4
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    142
    wow C1 seems to be pretty good

  5. #5
    Back from the Dead
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    6,602
    So C1 doesn't do wonders to the FSB wall
    That's what really sucks with these smaller yorkies, they all hit the wall too soon, limited not by Mhz but by FSB. Still great for normal overclocks, but people looking for extreme results will have to stick with 65nm or pay top dollar for the QX.
    That's why I decided to stick with my Q6600, I'll get that to approx. 4,2 stable under ss - can't do that with a Q9450
    World Community Grid - come join a great team and help us fight for a better tomorrow![size=1]


  6. #6
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    340
    this is not even ES,I see it is retail or OEM?

  7. #7
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    1,317
    Looking pretty good, but still not good enough. I was really hoping that they'd be able to hit about 500 FSB, otherwise I'll be looking at ditching my B3 for a G0 when the prices drop. If I get a decent batch I'll probably be able to get about 3.8-4.0Ghz on water.

    Eller

    Desktop: Q6600 G0 @ 3.6 Ghz | P5E | 2x2 Gb G.Skill PC8000 | GTX 560 Ti | CM690 | TT TP 750 watt | Win 7 Pro x64 | Water Cooling
    Server: i3 530 (Stock) | CM Vortex Low-Profile | Zotac H55-ITX WIFI | 2x2Gb Corsair 1333Mhz | IGP | VX450 | Server 2008 R2 x64

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    264
    I have a feeling they compensated for something with C1 revisions for making them used with P35. Q9550 results were quite awesome when they first were leaked- Not saying yours are bad- But Q9550 were seen around 4.0.

    They shouldve kept C0 and just make people upgrade there motherboard- If your going to buy a New proc thats this expensive same with the QX9650. I would hope you would have a new Motherboard with it.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Guru adamsleath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,803
    still no volume of these little toys available for the pleb's.
    i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz

  10. #10
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    515
    Will C1 be the first retail chips?. Because the first revision is nowhere to be seen.
    Intel is like Egypt in Rome:total war

  11. #11
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    636
    I'm more interested in knowing if the thermal sensor fix has been implimented in these C1 stepping. Judging by the screenshot, the answer is yes.

    @AndreYang - does coretemp go higher than 62 °C? Does the machine idle at reasonable temps as-per coretemp? Have you tried other temp monitoring software known to have problems with wolfdale/yorkfield cores like everest, hwmonitor, speedfan, etc.?

  12. #12
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    197
    480 mhz fsb?

  13. #13
    Memory Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,651
    oooh thanks for the heads up Andre - now to see if I can get my poor excuse of a QX9650 L739A644 retail oem (470FSB max quad 16m pi) exchanged for a C1 hehe
    ---

  14. #14
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    199
    Intel said the first revision could be not stable, so that's why there's a C1 now. But I have to say that's a pretty nice OC for a quad at that voltage. Nice

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Province of Como, Italy
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreYang View Post
    The FSB limit is about FSB 480 1M only.
    I'm waiting for my Q9450, and I realize that I won't see the nice 4.0 GHz number due to the impossibility to run 500MHz FSB 24:7 on a Quad.

    About your 480 MHz limit... Do you mean that it's only good for 1M superpi, and no stable 24:7 system at all?

    I'm going watercooling on MCH, MOSFET and CPU on my DFI X38-T2R, and I was hoping to hit at least a stable 470-480 MHz or so. What do you think about it?

    Thank you!
    Giacomo

  16. #16
    Memory Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,651
    more likely 445-455FSB -/+ 10mhz 24/7
    ---

  17. #17
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    1,107
    A little disappointing, but it is only one cpu. Also only 1.31v was used for the tests and if only the 8.5 multi was tried we don't really know if the limitation was fsb or cpu clocks. Maybe increasing vcore and/or dropping the multi would have given more fsb. I just wish they'd release them for sale so we'd know for sure.

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Athens,Greece
    Posts
    628
    So it will do like Q6600 for 24/7 only with lower vcore and the benefits
    are the extra cache and SSE 4.1.
    Q9550@3.85 can be compared with a 4.0GHz Q6600.
    E8400 TRUE120@Asus Maximus Formula@2x2GB Geil Evo One 800MHz 4-4-4@Corsair HX 620W
    Sapphire HD6850 1GB@Samsung 830 128GB@Casetek 1022-5@LG 19" 1970HQ
    Creative Inspire 5.1 5100@Samsung SH-S203B SA@CM Quickfire Pro Red@Logitech G-600

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    273
    seems like C-1 stepping likes FSB...
    lets see 500 FSB
    C2Q QX6800@ 3.75GHz (375x10 - 1.450v) - L725A - G0
    4GB PC2-5300 Kingston Micron D9@ 3-4-4-10 750MHz 1:1
    Asus P5E-Deluxe - no mods
    eVGA 9600gso G92 + XFX 8500 GT (physics)
    H4ck3d-Slackware 11.0
    kernel-2.6.22.1@MCORE2 Arch Optimized

  20. #20
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,463
    Quote Originally Posted by MarlboroMan View Post
    seems like C-1 stepping likes FSB...
    lets see 500 FSB
    AHAHAHA who is the guy on the right (eating vista) in this guys avatar???

  21. #21
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by MichelinGuy View Post
    Intel said the first revision could be not stable, so that's why there's a C1 now. But I have to say that's a pretty nice OC for a quad at that voltage. Nice
    Only because for some reasons there were users putting them on older P35 motherboards lol. Because of PSB noise from the cheaper 4 Layer PCB the 45nm C0 could not keep a stable fsb Voltage which would sometimes lead to instability.

    Now why users would buy a 1000 dollar CPU and not have at least a X38 or a 780i - Beats me!

    But for these new chips q9450, 9550 they're aimed at mainstream so not all users will upgrade there motherboard to compensate the new Chip.

    But what sucks is there changing the QX9650 to a C1 also- i have a feeling this is going to be a bad idea for people wanting a QX9650 later on. I am sure that compensating for compatability with older motherboards will have an effect on how they OC.

    QX9650's are a dream to OC I have mine running at 4.2 Stable with 1.38 Volts @ 66 C load under water

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    60
    Thanks for sharing Andre

    Looks like the FSB limit on the Engineering Samples reflected those of your C1.

    Pity, considering how these are scaling relative to VCore.
    i4memory.com

    Main: E8400 @ 4Ghz / 1.32v (Q745 & Q807) | ASUS P5Q-E | 4GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer
    Secondary: Intel E6600ES Step 5 B1 (3.6Ghz/1.38v) | P5B Deluxe | 4GB Micron D9GCT (OEM)
    Laptop: IBM Thinkpad T60 [Core Duo T2500 - 2Ghz] | 2GB DDR2 | 100GB HDD | ATi Radeon X1400
    HTPC: A64x2 3800+ @ 2.75Ghz/1.35v | DFI CFX3200-DR | 2x512MB GSkill GH | 6600GT | WD 160GB | Antec 500W Earthwatts | Antec 1000AMG | 32" LCD

  23. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    99
    Does anyone have an idea when the QX9650 C1 will be available? I have searched and the best I could find was March 3. I have seen on another forum a C1 being tested but more than likely was released outside the US. I am not sure. Anyone know?

    I am looking for the temperature readings to be fixed and better overclocks. I have one that I can take back as I am still in the window of returns. Anyone have a suggestion on what to do. Wait for the new ones or what?
    GTX 280 in TRI-SLI - 180.48 P33198
    EVGA 790I FTW Digital With Bitspower watercooling
    QX9770 @ 4 - 24/7, 4.6 for benching
    Supertalent Project X 1800mhz. 2X2 gb DDR3 8-8-8-24 2T - 1.9 volts
    1200 Watt Thermaltake modular
    Dtek Fuzion with Thermochill PA 120.3
    Lian Li V2000 Case

  24. #24
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreYang View Post
    C1 looks good so far, but Q9550 price is really expensive.

    I just test FSB 450*8.5 1.31V stable at 2XORTHOS Large. The FSB limit is about FSB 480 1M only.
    Is your Q9550 build still stable @ 8.5x450? I'm running my X3360 @ 8.5x400 stable, but haven't seriously tried higher. Can you share all your vcores so I can get an idea what range to set mine up to? Also, what are the hardware specifics for that system?

    Thanks!

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    285
    I can't get my Q9550 to boot past 435FSB. Not sure if the Asus P5E is limiting me or if the chip is just a dud.
    ASUS P5E X38 (RF 0701 Bios) Q9550@3.51 1.248v, Xigmatek S1283, 8GB GSkill DDR2-8000@990 1.94v, XFX HD5870,
    2 - Seagate 7200.10 320G RAID0, Seagate 7200.11 500G, Seagate 7200.12 1.5TB
    Lian-Li (Rocketfish) Full Tower, Silverstone Zeus 750Watt, Vista Ultimate x64 SP1, Dell U2410

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •